Failed MA Senate Candidate: I Was Wrong to Oppose Assault Weapons Ban

Gabriel Gomez ran for Senate in Massachusetts, a state so blue Smurfs can hide in plain sight. For some reason—whether to realize future political aspirations or simple to make his wife more comfortable at dinner parties—the former Navy SEAL has decided he was wrong to oppose an assault weapons ban in the Bay State. His Boston Globe mea culpa is a sickening a piece of pusillanimous politically correctness. Startling in it own way. Chew some Tums and tune in . . .

Earlier this year, I ran for the US Senate under the belief that our country is better than our politics. Like most Massachusetts voters, I was frustrated with the partisan bickering and failure in Washington. Entrenched politicians want us to believe we must falsely choose between right vs. left and liberal vs. conservative — with both sides unwilling to listen and blindly convinced that they are justified in their opinion.

How is a country better than politics? Isn’t that like saying beer is better than alcohol? And what makes Gomez think he can play the “why can’t we all just get along” card when Barack Obama has spent six years proving that bi-partisanship means never having to say let’s make a deal.

What do we have to show for it? Sequestration, filibusters, economic stagnation, and an unwillingness to listen and learn from each other.

Americans don’t trust their leaders to stand up against conventional wisdom. Politicians have lost the respect of a vast majority of Americans, in part, because they lack the courage to admit when they are wrong.

Politicians like Gomez—and they’re all like Gomez—would have you believe gridlock is like a traffic jam, preventing pols from getting where the American people want them to go—when you and i know our elected pols’ true destination is a private party with free hookers and blow. Roughly speaking.

I remain a private citizen, but feel I owe it to Massachusetts’ voters to admit that I was wrong in one of my earlier positions.

Throughout my campaign, I relentlessly traveled the Commonwealth listening to thousands of mothers, fathers, first responders, and to victims of crime on the issue of gun control. I heard from policy experts and law enforcement officials to broaden my knowledge, and to prepare me to best represent you as your United States Senator.

Uh-oh. No mention of chin wags with gun owners, who [still] form a significant proportion of Massive Taxes’ population. Or Bay State Constitutionalists, who draw inspiration from the former British colony’s revolutionary history. Or the thousands of military personnel stationed in Taxachusetts, who’ve sworn an oath to defend the United States Constitution. Like a certain RINO we know . . .

The overwhelming number of citizens and experts throughout Massachusetts supported banning these weapons and high capacity magazines. At the time, given my Navy SEAL experience, I felt they were wrong.

A lot of people, including my wife Sarah, disagreed with me.

Is Gomez seriously suggesting a Republican Senatorial candidate for Massachusetts encountered more gun control advocates than gun rights supporters? Or is he saying that his supporters’ support for the Second Amendment was inconsequential in the face of an “overwhelming” majority of Massachusetts residents and [unnamed] experts?

What led Gomez’s Navy SEAL to believe he was wrong to oppose legislation that would infringe on Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms—other than hectoring from his better half (a type of torture for which even SEAL training can’t forfend)?

Since the campaign, free from the burdens of a grueling spotlight, I have spent much time reflecting on these exchanges. I asked myself whether my position against banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines represented what is best for the people of our Commonwealth and our Country.

In short: on this issue Massachusetts is right, my wife Sarah is right, and I was wrong.

Based on everything I have learned, seen and heard from the citizens of this Commonwealth, I can no longer support legislation that would allow the continued sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and here is why:

My opposition to banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines was based on my experience as a platoon commander and as a member of the US Navy SEALs. My fellow SEAL team members are the most highly trained, professional warriors in the world.

Wait for it . . .

Navy SEALs can handle assault weapons and high capacity magazines with complete competency and safety. Others cannot. I can show virtually anybody how to change a high capacity magazine clip in five seconds. But that does not mean virtually anybody should have one.

Despite the political risks my decision may pose, the risks to schoolchildren and to other innocent victims caused by assault weapons are simply unacceptable.

So we get two reasons why Gomez abandoned his oath to uphold the United States Constitution.

First, you suck. SEALs can handle AR-15s and standard capacity magazines. You can’t. Even though you can change a “clip” in five seconds (wow that’s slow), even though millions of Americans shoot AR-15s with standard capacity magazines every day of the week (and twice on Sundays) without incident, it’s just too much deadliness! For you. Not Gomez and his homies.

I remain a strong, proud proponent of the Second Amendment. I will continue to speak out when politicians play politics and fear monger on guns. However, I will also continue to listen, learn and consider new evidence and arguments from the other side.

Many people of good will may honestly disagree with my decision. Some will be tempted to say my support for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines runs contrary to the Constitution and to the Second Amendment.

To the professional political critics, I simply offer this: volunteer for the Navy or for the other armed services, successfully go through SEAL or other special forces training. Then you will be fully qualified and prepared to fire as many assault weapons with unlimited high capacity magazines as you desire.

Ah, another example of “I support the Second Amendment but I don’t.” From a Republican, no less. And yes, Gabby, I was tempted to say you betrayed your oath to the United States Constitution. In fact, I did. ‘Cause you have.

As for allowing special forces guys to fire as many assault weapons with unlimited high capacity magazines as they desire, what are you meshugah? Those guys are wrapped way too tight. Then again, they do have the right to do so.

One more thing: anyone who wants to fire as many assault weapons with unlimited high capacity magazines as they desire are welcome in Texas. And that’s the truth.

Are you suggesting that a blue, tan, or black costume and a small, shiny piece of metal doesn’t make a law enforcement officer better than anyone else? I was convinced that the costume and badge changed their DNA, that it made them perfect humans immune to temptation and human folly. I am truly shocked, shocked I say.

Or not. Watch this video to see a police officer explode in rage at a motorist who was doing nothing wrong, who did nothing to get a traffic ticket. The motorist’s “transgression” was, well, you will have to see it to believe it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g7WYwYi3UM

At any rate I am glad that another officer was there to stop the guy who blew his top.

Any politician, whatever their claimed political stripe, who openly campaigns on the platform “I will agree to pick and choose which of your Constitutional rights I will support,” should be immediately and permanently barred from holding public office. Lifetime ban.

Amidst all the other bullshit in Gomez’s statement, this line stood out to me:

I can show virtually anybody how to change a high capacity magazine clip in five seconds.

I don’t know about you guys, but I find it really hard to believe that someone who has this much training (and is a former Navy SEAL) would ever actually call it a “high capacity magazine clip.” Unless he’s drunk the Kool-Aid, of course. Which he clearly has.

Actually, screw the amount of training. I’d be surprised to hear anyone who is ex-mil use that phrase.

Oh, and Gomez and his “I’m trained for this and you’re not” BS can take a long walk off a short pier.

This guy is a douchebag of the first order. Eff him and everyone like him. I can kinda understand your regular rank-and-file members of the Civilian Disarmament Movement who “just don’t like guns” or think “nobody needs one of those,” because hey, it’s just an opinion. But when you wrap it all up in “I’m better than you,” that’s when I start to take personal, rather than just philosophical offense. So eff him.

I read that as “I can show virtually anybody … in five seconds,” not that the mag change took five seconds. Not that it really matters either way, because that’s the least stupid part of the entire statement from him.

Knight, I was thinking the exact same thing. I was trained on an assault weapon (M-14) and used an M-16 as a soldier in Vietnam. So since I didn’t have special forces training, I guess he feels I’m not safe to use an AR-15. I also guess he means all soldier who are not special forces shouldn’t have assault weapons, probably shouldn’t even be in a war zone. So from now on, just let the special forces fight all the wars. And again, anyone who takes 5 seconds to change a mag, really isn’t trained.

Maybe someone should check him for alien implants? Most aliens have that little straw thing that pokes out just about at the hairline on the back of the neck. That is about the only reasonable explanation for a Navy Seal to start using the phrase ‘a high capacity magazine clip.’

He knows the differences and either flat our drank the kool-aid or someone else wrote the article and he signed off on it. Either way, it looks like he is willing to be whatever is called for while hoping for the next spot on a political card somewhere.

I find it really hard to believe that someone who has this much training (and is a former Navy SEAL) would ever actually call it a “high capacity magazine clip.” Unless he’s drunk the Kool-Aid, of course…

Exactly my thought when I first read it. Or unless he’s writing it under duress a la Daniel Pearl (Amrika), or didn’t even write it but forced to release it in order to keep someone happy and prevent some damaging information from going public.

I know some guys who practice regularly with their so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazine clips” (whatever the hell that is), and I would put any one of them up against this clown any day of the week. What a dumbass.

The ability to safely handle firearms and the ability to become a special forces operator are SO far removed, it’s ridiculous. I was a a safe shooter at age 12, and at age 26 BUD/S absolutely kicked my butt.

The other huge flaw in Gomez’s argument is that he thinks you should sign up for gov’t service… in order to exercise a right designed to free you from gov’t tyranny.

I get the “BUD/S instructor vibe” from this guy – an attitude of complete and utter contempt, disdain, and disregard for anyone who hasn’t earned the Trident.

“I asked myself … what is best for the people of our Commonwealth and our Country.” — Mr. Gabriel Gomez

And there you have it. Mr. Gomez knows what’s best for you and me. More importantly, Massachusetts knows what’s best for you and me. And, not surprisingly, Mr. Gomez and Massachusetts wants to save us from our selves.

And for all of you who oppose open carry because you fear some sort of backlash from Mr. Gomez and his ilk … I state emphatically once again that banning open carry will not even come close to satisfying them.

I don’t want to ban open carry, I don’t even oppose it. Hell I often open carry myself.

But I think it’s counter-productive for someone to engage in exhibitionism. A pistol carried like you would carry it every day is one thing; walking in with a rifle carried unsafely, covering people with a muzzle because you aren’t minding where you are pointing it, and so forth, just to say “nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, I can do this you can’t touch me” will invite the people on the fence on this issue to think we are all a bunch of unsafe yahoos.

The telling point is that the radical OCers will get their rifles out and carry them to places for shock value. They don’t *normally* carry a rifle on their daily business, but they’ll do it for show, begging to be noticed.

It’s your right, but use your judgement, and understand what effect your actions have on the people you are actually trying to persuade. If you don’t carry rifles anywhere else, why drag them out just to make a political point?

I do agree completely that people carrying rifles should not sweep other people with the muzzle. When I picture carrying a rifle responsibly, the rifle is strapped on a person’s back and the muzzle is either pointing almost straight up or straight down.

Typical MA RINO.
MA is the one place I’ve seen where Republicans must act like Democrats in order to just survive.
However Scott Brown was an fluke, the low information voters of MA will always vote for the person with the D by their name.
Glad I left that shithole place forever.
Smitty

Mr. Gomez is so far off the mark he might as well be on Mars. His so-called “piece” (piece of something alrighty!) just reeks of arrogance, either intended or not along with all the usual language tropes that the usual gun-grabbers use. High-capacity magazine clips? Assault weapons? Gimme a break. I don’t care if he was a Navy Seal or not, he is a tool. I spent 5 years on active duty in the US Army. So what?! I don’t use that as a prerequisite to tell others whether or not they can competently handle an AR-15. This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard and his reasoning lacks a lot of common sense. What a buffoon. But what really burns me is that they typical gun-grabbers will latch onto this turd and proclaim, “see, he was a seal and even he is for an awb!” Useful idiot for the rest of the idiots.

Amen in my time in all our cqb classes were instructed by civilians or guys that went to the NRA classes to be cqb instructors hell even 5th legion uses civvy instructors and equipment like mags butt stocks and other toys.

Robert, you missed the best part — Gomez had previously pledged his support for gun control, when he was begging Deval Patrick to make him the interim appointed Senator. He only became pro-gun when that didn’t happen and he decided to run for the GOP nomination.

From his letter to Patrick:

“Two main issues that will dominate the political discussion during this appointment will be Immigration Reform and Gun Control. Given my Latino and Navy SEAL background, I have credibility to contribute thoughtfully on these issues. I support the positions that President Obama has taken on these issues and you can be assured I will keep my word and work on these issues as I have promised.”

So the idea that Gomez was convinced of the value of gun control by talking to the voters is an obvious lie. He was already a known supporter of gun control (or at least pretended to be one for political gain).

High speed, low drag is a reference to a type of fin configuration on bombs. There is also a type of fin configuration that deploys a parachute that is referred to as high drag, low speed. Another name for a high drag low speed bomb is “retarded”. Seems to fit pretty well for this political moron.

Ah, yes, the MA – the home of I was for it before I was against it before I was for it. And, Romneycare.
And, just like Romney, if Gomez ever got elected and then sought national stage, he’d spend a lot of time running from his record. I am 100% sure he’ll change his mind on this issue again.

So if I don’t have SEAL training then I’m too stupid to properly handle a firearm? If so, then am I too incompetent to use a fire extinguisher since I’m not a fireman? Am I incapable of teaching my daughter to read since I’m not a public school teacher?

I’ve got a lot of respect for the job the military guys and gals do, but I don’t need some cocky a-hole SEAL telling me I can’t handle a gun. The average gun owner may not be an “operator” or be able to rappel out of a Blackhawk, but I’m pretty sure that many of us lowly “civilians” can still just as competently handle a firearm as “Mr. Awesome” in his Tom Cruise bomber jacket.

SEALs (and SF generally) aren’t gods of shooting, but of PT. The reason, really, that they’re denominated “special” is so ordinary men badly in need of recognition and excitement will be motivated to submit to the absurdly grueling PT regimen and accept physical risk: The name itself, and the excitement, is their reward. Or that seems to have been the doctrine, so far as I can tell.

In pure shooting contests (which they do often enough enter) they don’t seem to be the top prize winners frequently, though one did win the national years ago (IDPA, I think) shooting against 1911’s with his Sig 220. This non-champion bit would change, I imagine, if a twenty-mile run with heavy pack is part of one stage.

If all the SEAL wannabees want to get real, they should be donning fins and a snorkel and keeping their heads continuously under water for two hours as they swim around in a cold bay, after completing a 20 mile fast march. How cool is that, wannabee?

The glorification of SEALs reflects on the skill of Navy PR, joined with the urge of ‘everyman’ to want association with a kind of glory he never sees but only reads about, or views in movies. “If the public read the details of every SpecOps mission that went totally south, they’d have a more mixed opinion.” That last statement is a close paraphrase of a private statement by a congressional supporter of SpecOps.

However, I will also continue to listen, learn and consider new evidence and arguments from the other side.
-Translation: “I will improve my empty pandering rhetoric understanding just as often as I need to to win an election, but I’ll f’k up and do it after the election, not before. God I want a big time job.”

I would have to disagree that Special Operations are only called “special” for marketing reasons or to attract men in need of recognition and/or glory. And they are competent shooters. But there is a huge difference between combat shooting versus shooting at a range. Special Operations are very skilled in combat shooting. They are specialists in particular forms of warfare and have to have mental strength and physical capability above and beyond that of the average soldier.

But none of this makes them all morally good or educated about gun rights. I would bet you that a great deal of your British, French, and German special operations soldiers are also pro-gun control.

He also gets the term wrong. SEALs are not “special forces,” they are Special Operations. THE Special Forces are of the Army, and are one of the various Special Operations forces. The Special Forces wear the green beret and are often known as the “Green Berets.”

No Jeh, Kyle got the SOF/SF difference right. SF refers only to Army “Special Forces” ie. Green Berets. SOF is indeed the general term, which goes applies to everyone from Rangers to PJs to DEVGRU to ACE. (Army Compartmented Element – the most recent known name for SOFD-D)

I meant SF in the generic sense, but obviously SOF is the inclusive US JSOC term. I had a close association with one part of SF, those in certain groups in the early seventies. I spent a grand total of two days flying SEALs, and those two days were both from a very small FOB at An Loc, a bit south of Danang. What I know of recent SEALs is just common publicity material, really, elaborate press releases and self-advocacy of guys hoping to make a living training people in carbine use.

I disagree with the notion that the modern use of “special” in the unit names, starting with the Special Air Service and onward, was anything other than a motivational tool, though one that inevitably led to its own proofs, as the guys who said “take me” were absolutely willing to do anything to earn the patch, and that recognition isn’t my invention, but goes back to the British, and then to Hackworth et al. Why, I might ask you, Kyle, do you think they were named Special Air Service or Special Forces. I’m curious about other theories. What not just “Small Unit Tactics Service”? And what was the beret about? “Special” knives? Been there, seen it up close.

I agree with your assertion that the particular virtues of various small unit tactics (SUT) groups are not ethical. They are rather the opposite, martial. When, to be blunt, a person agrees to go into a country he does not know, to co-ordinates sent to him by a group in Langley or at MacDill, with explosives and guns, to kill the residents of a house identified by satellite, partially on a hunch, ethics is not the person’s primary skill. It will take guts, training, and fitness, but the valor is of the kind that seeks recognition from others like himself, guys at the team house or Coronado pubs, that he has it, is really good. It’s a personal martial valor, not some sort of special patriotism. And if you have worked closely with such groups, or were in one, you will recognize the truth in that. And they’re continual stroked by their leaders, reinforcing that belief that they are super, are special, could all run GM or Apple, and will they please risk their lives next week in Zumwhereistan for unspecified secret reasons? “Sure!”

That having been part of that world is considered a political plus, or that people from that world have any special qualification to judge what small arms you or I have…is absurd. Indeed many of the Academy types seem to end up thinking, in effect, that the Hessians should have had rifles, but not the citizens of colonial Pennsylvania. Wesley Clark is a perfect example. Gomez provides yet another. There is a kind of person that will do anything for a medal, a promotion, an appointment, including adopt the current views of people he actually despises, as long as they will make him more powerful. I disdain the type. Neither Clark in ’08 or Gomez recently has the simple honesty to speak of gansta’ ethos in the ghettos, and pistol crime. But oh boy, can they jump on the patrol rifles as a threat to peace. What bullsh-t. We’re talking about fundamental rights here, not some minor policy change.

As a Navy Seal he should be ashamed of himself if it takes him 5 seconds to do a mag change on an AR variant. I’m a southpaw who is quite a bit out of practice and I guarantee I can do a speed reload in the neighborhood of 1-2 seconds.

His argument is self – defeating. If he is a badass, he is also able to defend him self with improvised weapons or his bare hands. How would an untrained 125 pound single mom protect herself from a creepy ex-boyfriend (and perhaps his creepy friends) with her bare hands? She’s easy pickings for a mugger when walking down an alley, a home invasion, or a carjacking. If anything, those without extensive combat training are the most vulnerable to attack, and subsequently have the greatest need for armed armed self defense. That need is doubly apparent when the vulnerable person inhabits a high-crime neighborhood.

Also, the manual of arms for an AR is not exceptionally difficult. Glocks are simple to use as well (although ND prone given operator error). If you can load a 10 round mag, you can certainly load a 15 or 30 round mag of the same size.

Regardless, it is disgusting to see someone who was once a warrior sell out to the civilian disarmament complex. I consider him to be a traitor to the principles of our nation.

Ya know who else was a Navy vet? The lunatic who shot up the Navy Yard. Military experience and training don’t make someone sane, responsible, or morally upright. The idea that only government-trained soldiers should be permitted to exercise their second amendment rights is patently un-American.

I will continue to speak out when politicians play politics and fear monger on guns…Some will be tempted to say my support for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines runs contrary to the Constitution and to the Second Amendment.

Does this mean he has to speak out against himself?

To the professional political critics…

I’m an amateur critic. But those soldiers who have been defeating US imperialism across Asia since the ’60s have mostly been amateurs too. A highly motivated group of civilians defending their homes from professional foreign killers is hard to defeat.

…I simply offer this: volunteer for the Navy or for the other armed services, successfully go through SEAL or other special forces training. Then you will be fully qualified and prepared to fire as many assault weapons with unlimited high capacity magazines as you desire.

So only special forces people are qualified to fire semi-auto pistols with full capacity magazines? Does he suggest we disarm the cops now? If so, I think we’ve found some common ground. And I don’t think most Army or Marine riflemen go through SF training, so are we disarming them, too? (I’m beginning to warm up to this guy.)

But I really don’t get the logic that to be able to use the tools necessary to defend myself from psychotic murderers, I have to join a group of professional psychotic murderers.

I speak German.
But if you’re referring to the myth of the German invasion, I’ll point out that the Germans couldn’t even invade Great Britain 21 miles away, so their chances of crossing the Atlantic Ocean were zero.
My defense relies on two massive oceans, two friendly borders, and 310 million civilian guns.

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.”
-James Madison

It is amazing to see the difference between my father’s generation and his. When I was 13 my dad taught me to shoot his 1911 (which he carried in WW2 and Korea as an Airborne Ranger), and would regularly take me to Camp Perry to see the competitions. I met many warriors, still know many, and have never encountered this type of asshattery from any “real” operators.

Given the focus that this guy puts on his military background, I highly doubt that it was anything as remotely exciting as he makes it out to be. I am automatically suspicious of anyone who throws modesty by the wayside and plays the “hero” card. This guy is hardly a silent professional.

What kind of SEAL says “assault weapons” or “clip”, other then one that has probably never used a firearm? Were suppose to trust these people to use a weapon correctly when they cant even use proper terminology? Hah! For a SEAL, if he in fact did have to undergo operations and see the people unarmed and beaten to death in various nations, to come back and say Americans are better off without guns is total bullsh*t.

It must have been severe duty commanding a SEAL platoon in Saint Lucia, meeting up with the chicks on nearby Caribbean islands like St. Vincent, one of whom he married. Brutal. Is that where they station the hard core teams? He grew up in an upper-middle-class family. Tennis was his sport, and got him into the Academy. And what, I ask, is with every MA republican having a private equity background (formerly known as the artist Leveraged Buyout/Raiders). Clearly the PE community doesn’t care about a single Republican issue except taxes. The other issues? 2nd Am? meh.

I will never give up my guns,even under threat of death by the government,because if they do that then I am considering that as a act of war against me and other citizens,and that means that all bets are off and they have now made themselves a target for myself and other law-abiding gun owners.There is always two sides to a coin,and mine is heads I win,tails you lose!Let them come,I have something for them,and it ain’t pretty!Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

I didnt realize I was unfit to handle an AR with a big ‘clip’ because I wasnt a seal. I was only an USAF puke after all.
Thanks for the heads up asshole now get a real job and pay taxes like the rest of us.

Funny thing is that the statistics show that a private citizen is less likely to shoot the wrong guy when responding to a crime with weapon drawn than all of those highly trained cops. Cops are 5 times more likely to shoot the wrong person. So by his logic, cops should be disarmed. 😉

This is a begging letter, and says, “If you don’t like my position, I’ve got others…”. So when was he lying, when he was against gun control, or now when he’s for it? Either way, he’s disqualified himself for any version of leadership within any advanced democracy. But probably good enough for Massachussetts.

Credit where credit is due. I believe that it was the Republicans during Clinton that first started playing the “NO NO NO” card when it comes to compromise. But both sides have been quick to add it to their repertoire whenever it suits them.